Dear Casters: Spell changes do not mean the world's end, and here's why

[voodoogroves]

Sure, thats true, but I wish people were equally as passionate and loud about the positives as they are about the negatives.

That's just psychology. And different threads. Just looking at my main-ish toons

- My Sorcerers are LOVING this update, though may move more towads blasting frequently w/ less metamagics.
- So are my FVSs. Loving. I've got a melee-capable, THF Silver Flame FVS who is probably the perfect match for this PRE with both casting and melee focus.
- My Rogue is holding judgement until we see what happens to sticks (Dreamspitter, Souleater).
- My cleric is ... well ... a Radiant Servant. He was already an easy button.
- My monk is unsure how well he can stun w/o a reconfig in epics after U9 but otherwise is moderately unaffected.

- My Wizard is tentative and worried. CC changes, increased saves, cooldown increases and the trend to cheaper and more damage spells but no metamagic changes is a lot of balls in the air to juggle and I'm not sure something isn't going to get dropped. Things will be diferent.



I've got 3 True Hearts sitting and waiting. Annoying as it is and worried as I am about some of the updates, I'm ready to TR whoever gets hit the hardest. I may end up with a stable loaded w/ FVS / Bard / Sorcs though if I'm not careful.

[Zerkul]

The point is not about NERFing things. The point is not that Sorcerers get buffed in their job and the Spells get changed.

That's how these things are done: till i do not get from DEVs a real explanation of why WoF should allow a reflex save if i jump in it, not based on meree numbers but on logic, i won't like this change.



For what concern my personal opinion on the rest i mostly agree on the changes being done. A bit of chage won't hurt.

[Nospheratus]

This. With, of course, the addition that I'm still undecided on Turbine's motivation.

It seems like anytime someone finds a way to be successful that doesn't match Turbine view of how the game should be played, they make changes to force people to comply. Coupled with the fact that they refuse to share their grand plan for How You Play The Game with us in advance, it is all very frustrating.

I agree here. Turbine isn't pushing the buttons on your keyboard for you, but it's a matter of how motivated you are to play in a certain way, or in this case to use certain spells.

This is a shame considering the art/dev resources devoted to the creation of so many other spells also floating in the system.

On another note, it has become a noticeable point that arcane casters are a rather difficult class to get into. The Classic 3.5 D&D concept of starting weak then gain cosmic power. While loyal to our roots we felt that perhaps the current learning curve is a bit too harsh, and we’re looking at making it an easier class role to enter for new players.

That's actually true and could possibly be the motivation. They already spent money developing those things, might as well "get people to use them".
The learning curve isn't that steep, but the spell costs at the lower levels are a bit high though...

This is true for wall of fire but not necessarily all DoT's. Melf's acid arrow costs less, for example, likely because it's a single target DoT. I'm waiting for the big list of spell changes for that but do not see a big issue with the changes so far.

Longer timers on instakills and lower costs on a lot of direct damage does make each spell more relative to each other in comparison. Change isn't necessarily bad.

Change isn't necessarily bad, but with the information available I can think of a certain quest or two where I will probably have to be a lot more conservative with the SPs to make them last between shrines... Will probably save sps for cc and let the melees kill the mobs, except the cc is indirectly getting nerfed because the mobs are losing the "minion debuf". One door gets closed, I turn around and another one closes.

Like I said, can't be sure until I try it, but that's the feeling I have at the moment.

[cdemeritt]

While I agree with you, the world isn't ending, it doesn't mean this isn't going to hurt...


The Nerf to Wall of Fire, as much as I hate the changes, I will as a caster admit, were long overdue. That being said, I guess I'm gonna clear my schedule and Do the Necro Quests on Elite now for Favor, Before the changes...

Wow... neg rep for agreeing that the world isn't ending... Or was it admitting the WoF was way overused, and overpowered for a lvl 4 spell?

[Cartheron]

*snip*

- Spell damage enhancements have been changed, their costs apparently "lowered" but in fact increased! In order to get to the same Max damage(+40%)/max crit chance(+9%)/max crit damage(+125%) you will need to spend a lot more!

Considering having fire and cold with the same boosts:
BEFORE:
Damage (+40%): 10 APs
Crit multiplier (+125%): 6 APs
Crit chance (+9%): 6 APs
-----------
22 APs

NOW (including both fire and cold):
Damage (+40%): 10 APs
Crit multiplier (+125%): 12 APs
Crit chance (+9%): 12 APs
-----------
34 APs

Considering you want to spend the same APs as before:
Damage (+40%): 10 APs
Crit multiplier (+95%): 6 APs
Crit chance (+6%): 6 APs
-----------
22 APs

So, regarding the versatility argument, this shows why the versatility is going away. You have to specialize in one of the elements if you want to have the same efficiency as before, for the same cost.

*snip*

I have just made some basic calculations about that, because for me damage increase from crit lines always looked a bit low regearding their cost.

To make my post clearer, lets assume you are going to cast 1 spell 100 times, damage dealt by this spell without considering enchantments will be called x.

Under current system, you spend 22AP to fully spec in 2 lines, as shown above. With major lore item, you have 140% damage, with 18% crit rate and 2,75 multiplier. Damage formula:

82x *1,4 + 18x *1,4*2,75 = 184,1x

Under new system, after spending 9 AP on damage line you get 150% damage, 13% crit rate and 2,25 multiplier. Damage formula:

87x *1,5 + 13x *1,5*2,25 = 174,375x

So, after spending 18 AP, you get damage efficiency only about 5,5% lower that under current system, with option of choosing 2 lines of your liking, not only fire/cold or acid/lighting.

Or you can spec in 1 line, spend 19AP to max it and get 150% damage, 18% crit rate and 2,75 multiplier. Damage formula:

82x *1,5 + 18x *1,5*2,75 = 197,25x

and get 7,1% increase in damage (comparing to current system), or 13,11% increase (comparing to spending 9 AP under new system).

I think I'll live somehow with -5,5% damage (especialy since instant nukes are cheaper, so can be use more often, so actual damage rises) and take my 4 free APs, I think I'll find some good use for them

Basicaly, AP cost change is not so DDDDDdddddddOOOOOoooooMMMMMMmmmmm!!!!!111!!1!! as some poeple claim.

[Junts]

Wow... neg rep for agreeing that the world isn't ending... Or was it admitting the WoF was way overused, and overpowered for a lvl 4 spell?

I've been negged 3 times in this thread.

On the other hand, I've got 700 rep worth of positive, which is -really- hard to get at champion of stormreach.

[learst]

This. With, of course, the addition that I'm still undecided on Turbine's motivation.

It seems like anytime someone finds a way to be successful that doesn't match Turbine view of how the game should be played, they make changes to force people to comply. Coupled with the fact that they refuse to share their grand plan for How You Play The Game with us in advance, it is all very frustrating.

Because there is NO grand plan for how to play the game. I think Turbine, like most businesses, wants to maximise their profit. And by this I mean rationally, not by simply charging everyone 100 bucks and absconding.

But how do you go about making profits? It's a process that continues to evolve - the permanent subscription model didn't work - so they went F2P? And the DDO store is a new concept - how is it supposed to work? It's something they're trying to figure out and balance against the need/want of the players while making a profiit and not alienating too many players.

Similarly - how do you play this game? How do you design arcanes? Is it good that spell X do so much damage over this time? Should we follow the P&P description or should we change it? How bout melees? How bout epics? If players can do X quests so quickly, then what are the implications?

Basically, 5-6 years down the road, Turbine is still venturing into new territory. How do you design a game that will cater to most players' wants while minimizing alienating your older players? It's the same question they will still have to consider 10, 20, 30 years down the road. This is true not just for Turbine or the gaming industry, but for any form of businesses out there as well.

[Lycurgus]

I think I'll live somehow with -5,5% damage (especialy since instant nukes are cheaper, so can be use more often, so actual damage rises) and take my 4 free APs, I think I'll find some good use for them

Basicaly, AP cost change is not so DDDDDdddddddOOOOOoooooMMMMMMmmmmm!!!!!111!!1!! as some poeple claim.

Not to venture too far off into speculation, but I'm curious how this plays out. To use the dreaming dark as an example, elemental damage primarily occurs through crits and not base damage. Yes, I realize enervate and finger/wail is the way to go there. The update is proposed to bring increased saves on mobs and the addition of spell pen checks, though. I'm curious to see how essential crit damage becomes in some content, particularly given the need to choose between a generalist approach with diminished crits and a specialist approach with fewer options available.

[slimkj]

Arcane casters right now use a very small toolbox

You must mean "Dull of mind and/or poorly/optimally played arcane casters", Shirley?

Also, the size of my toolbox is my business.

[Junts]

You must mean "Dull of mind and/or poorly/optimally played arcane casters", Shirley?

Also, the size of my toolbox is my business.

Not really. I play a pretty versitile caster with a wide range of spells, but most of those spells are specialist stuff that I don't use in even a majority of quests - because the optimal tactics for most situations come from a very short and common list. Many quests, even epic quests, I can do with less than 6 spells that aren't buffs, even soloing - in a group, its wall/irresistable/flesh to stone/mass hold, soloing its the first three, possibly polar ray and symbol of persuasion, and a couple others. Considering how many spells this game's got, we use a really small number of them. We easily run around with ultra-specialist spells like fire shield that are great in a very few situations, and we can do that despite them using a spell slot at the most competitive level (4) in the game - because the general answers are so universally good.

That's an extremely limited list.

[oberon131313]

That's how these things are done: till i do not get from DEVs a real explanation of why WoF should allow a reflex save if i jump in it, not based on meree numbers but on logic, i won't like this change.

You should hold your breath and stamp your feet too...

They aren't required to give you any logical explanation further than "we did it because we felt it would better bring balance." They aren't even required to give you that.

[slimkj]

Not really. I play a pretty versitile caster with a wide range of spells, but most of those spells are specialist stuff that I don't use in even a majority of quests - because the optimal tactics for most situations come from a very short and common list. Many quests, even epic quests, I can do with less than 6 spells that aren't buffs, even soloing - in a group, its wall/irresistable/flesh to stone/mass hold, soloing its the first three, possibly polar ray and symbol of persuasion, and a couple others. Considering how many spells this game's got, we use a really small number of them. We easily run around with ultra-specialist spells like fire shield that are great in a very few situations, and we can do that despite them using a spell slot at the most competitive level (4) in the game - because the general answers are so universally good.

That's an extremely limited list.

Yeah, that's why I had optimally played in there. As I'm sure you well know, you can vary life as a caster by not always playing to the optimum. Same with builds, of course.

It's how some keep their interest up in DDO in face of long periods between new content. Playing the most efficient way is one fun way to play. Playing inefficiently for spice is another. Actually, less efficiently is probably a better way to put it - like the fun but a bit slower FOM/Sleet Storm combo, for example.

Of course some spells are (/were) sadly just relegated to the bin due to HD and HP caps and I'm very much looking forward to playing with them in future!

[Kriogen]

Not really. I play a pretty versitile caster with a wide range of spells, but most of those spells are specialist stuff that I don't use in even a majority of quests - because the optimal tactics for most situations come from a very short and common list. Many quests, even epic quests, I can do with less than 6 spells that aren't buffs, even soloing - in a group, its wall/irresistable/flesh to stone/mass hold, soloing its the first three, possibly polar ray and symbol of persuasion, and a couple others. Considering how many spells this game's got, we use a really small number of them. We easily run around with ultra-specialist spells like fire shield that are great in a very few situations, and we can do that despite them using a spell slot at the most competitive level (4) in the game - because the general answers are so universally good.

That's an extremely limited list.

You (me and all others) use very limited list of spells because most spells have the same function. Hypno is the same as Sleep and Web and Otto and Discoball and ... same function, crowd control. You can repeat this with any other give spell.

You also don't need 10 damage spells with 3 sec cooldown if you nuke for example. You only need 3 and then you rotate.

You also have limited mana and so take only those spells that are very effective. Spell that really makes a difference and not some pretty gimick.

Quests must also not be designed in such a way that you need wide selection of spells because Sorcerers exist. Sorc has less spell slots, can't swap them fast, but must still be viable class.

[Junts]

You (me and all others) use very limited list of spells because most spells have the same function. Hypno is the same as Sleep and Web and Otto and Discoball and ... same function, crowd control. You can repeat this with any other give spell.

You also don't need 10 damage spells with 3 sec cooldown if you nuke for example. You only need 3 and then you rotate.

You also have limited mana and so take only those spells that are very effective. Spell that really makes a difference and not some pretty gimick.

Quests must also not be designed in such a way that you need wide selection of spells because Sorcerers exist. Sorc has less spell slots, can't swap them fast, but must still be viable class.

Which is why we should be embracing them creating a system where a much wider range of spell combinations and elemental spec combinations are viable, effective and good at different things, instead of every competent caster casting the same 9 offensive spells until their eyes bleed.

[Cartheron]

Not to venture too far off into speculation, but I'm curious how this plays out. To use the dreaming dark as an example, elemental damage primarily occurs through crits and not base damage. Yes, I realize enervate and finger/wail is the way to go there. The update is proposed to bring increased saves on mobs and the addition of spell pen checks, though. I'm curious to see how essential crit damage becomes in some content, particularly given the need to choose between a generalist approach with diminished crits and a specialist approach with fewer options available.

Well, Ive checked IQ mobs - there is always 1 element they are not resistant or even vulnerable to (Dream reavers are not resistant to lighting), and you can always go for force/untyped spells. Or you can spec in 1 element and count for crits, as until now

[Blank_Zero]

-1

Couldn't disagree more. As it isn't just FW that is being nerfed. While the damage for FW is being reduced and its time frame, the fact that IT AND ALL OTHER DoT SPELLS ARE BEING KILLED WITH THE LOSS OF EXTEND IS A HUGE NERF!!!!!!

I don't play casters (yet) and even I know that losing Extend isn't the end-all-be-all.

Actually, the FW "nerf" is just a cover for the WotB "nerf" also coming in.

[DelverRootnose]

You have a point there, but it is my understanding that Junts does, in fact, play a caster. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that many of the people posting in this thread play casters. And many people seem to have the same opinion as Junts.

Additionally, I was under the impression that all of the spell changes have not yet been disclosed. If that is the case, then we should really wait untill we know all about the changes before making blanket statements about Sorcs and Wizzies.

That does not mean that we can not have a reasonable discussion about the changes to firewall, but it does mean that any statement about the change to firewall in relation to all the other spells is based on incomplete information. Hopefully we will get a full list of spell changes soon, and then the TRUE DOOOooMMMmMMm!!111!!11! can begin. This is just a prelude.

I don't care a whit about the changes to firewall. I care about the changes to saves, and the changes to autocrit. and most importantly to the changes to the wizard and sorc enhancements and costs therof.

[Ashbinder]

Given how Metamagics apply, using all of these new low cost spells isn't a net gain in efficiency over firewall. The only way to avoid spending large amounts of SP nuking is to stick to SLAs, which will take longer vs. multiple targets and still create a monoculture spell choice environment. Otherwise you turn off your metas for SP gain and take an eternity to kill something using base spell damage.

[nucphyschem]

im less concerned with firewall and more concerned withe the split of the dmg type enchanments to dmg and crit

befor a wf sorc could spend 54 ap and max out fire/cold and 10 to max repair dmg and 22 to max acid electric dmg and crits

now to max out fire dmg and crits costs 18 ap
max out one of cold acid electric or force dmg and crits 18 ap
max out repair dmg 7 ap
take fire pre 8 ap (not counting prereqs)
51 ap no crits for repair ( not needed anyways) nothing in 3 dmg types i had befor

minimal increase in dmg 1.75 x ( .5 enhancement +.2 capstone +.5 potency + 1 base+)now as opposed 1.75 x (.4 enh+.2 capstone +.5 potency + 1 base)
now 1.75 x 2.2 befor 1.75 x 2.1
thats 3.85 x base damage now as opposed to 3.675 x base dmg befor

so u are spending 2 less ap for minimal dmg increase in 2 types and losing three other dmg types completely -- and this is suposed to diversify spell selection

This is my big fear because its not like AM wizards have loads of ap to throw around as is.

[Silverleafeon]

Nobody messes with the Doomsayers' Union ...

*giggles*